East Coast skis

[Jeronimo]

So you love the AR and adore the Atlas, but yet you want more. TBH, i am totally wasting time here, but what the heck .... among the SE 'killer deals' under $600, not a lot in your expected length. I'd get the 186cm Ripstick 88. Actually, i would get the Legend 106

Whats your weapon of choice pipe?

 

[pipestem]

Right now the Kanjos are my east coast ski. Jury still out but so far so good, have not hit a good powder day yet. I have some Black Diamonds that are no longer getting use as the big west ski. Lets say I go west again next year, I'll be looking for something ~100 mm 50/50 range. Couch surfing right now. Not really looking for the one ski quiver.

 

[Jeronimo]

Right now the Kanjos are my east coast ski. Jury still out but so far so good, have not hit a good powder day yet. I have some Black Diamonds that are no longer getting use as the big west ski. Lets say I go west again next year, I'll be looking for something ~100 mm 50/50 range. Couch surfing right now. Not really looking for the one ski quiver.

I hear that. Good friend of mine just picked up the Kanjo's a day before a trip to Saddleback, he absolutely LOVED them. He's not an equipment whore like I am though, so I always have to take his feedback with a grain of salt He's more of a short length, quick smear turn down the fall line kind of guy and from the sound of it they did that in spades for him. I have to say, Volkl has been building some beautiful top sheets. I love the progressive color look.

 

[pipestem]

Yeah the KJ are pretty straight and not much camber so they might encourage a smear, but I can tip them on edge and get a decent carve and then release that into a fall line frenzy. The are slick but too close in size to your other weapons. The look doesn't hurt. You have a lot of good choices and this forum is really bad for gear head budgets. Really bad. Where are you skiing in Maine ? My deepest east coast powder day was at the loaf in April - long ago - with next-day left overs at Saddleback. I had and needed a good tank for those days.

 

[Jeronimo]

Yeah the KJ are pretty straight and not much camber so they might encourage a smear, but I can tip them on edge and get a decent carve and then release that into a fall line frenzy. The are slick but too close in size to your other weapons. The look doesn't hurt. You have a lot of good choices and this forum is really bad for gear head budgets. Really bad. Where are you skiing in Maine ? My deepest east coast powder day was at the loaf in April - long ago - with next-day left overs at Saddleback. I had and needed a good tank for those days.

I ski where ever I can find a good deal. The passes (as i'm sure you know) don't really give you all access to much variety up here and I'm SUPER pissed with Vail's shenanigans from end of season last year. I won't be touching an epic pass for a while. Favorite mountains are probably Sunday River, Bretton Woods, and Saddleback but I really enjoy some of the smaller peaks littered around like Gunstock/Black Mtn/Shawnee/Abrams. I've always heard that Jay Peak is our east coast destination for sick powder, but I don't have a lot of experience with powder given the obvious limitations of my locations. Places have been PACKED this seasons though! It's crazy! Its like everyone who ever wanted to try skiing, or who ever skied once in their past, decided to commit to it all winter this year.

 

[Muleski]

Confused. Would like to help, or offer to.

What length are your AR's? And the Atlas?

Give me some insight. You talked about Maine. I have maybe 3000 days on snow there. Most at Sugarloaf, maybe 10% at Sunday River. Where do you typically ski when skiing at either spot? Trying to figure out terrain. And not what you aspire to ski well....what you do ski well. Where you feel your best skiing is taking place.

If you want some serious, objective opinions from knowledgeable people on this site, the more details, objective information, endless "stoke and vibe" the better. I can't tell how skilled you are, weather you actually get your skis up on edge and carve turns to completion, how much you skid them, whether you can control speed with turn shape......let alone how you would ski East Coast "bumps." We'll leave out the "powder" for now.

We know your size. I'm close to the same size, as are many others on here.

What are you in for boots? That might help us get a good picture. Some skis might NOT be a great match with your boots, and you might want to consider a different boot, and boot fitter to start.

I'm glad to give you some thoughts, if you'll share that info. Anybody with some skills could ski the East at a very high level with a one ski quiver, and really nail it with two. And yeah, one, IMO, would be a LOT "narrower" that you see those guys slaying Sunday River with. The power of persuasion and marketing does wonders in this industry, often eclipsing logic and experience.

Cyrus has a great story and his skis were the absolute hot darling of this place for at least a couple of years. I see remarkably few in N.E. and the comments among some GREAT skiers that I know, right in his backyard, do not always line up with some that I see online.

BTW, I ski quite a bit in Maine. In a normal year, it would be 100+ days there. Have owned a home at Sugarloaf for 30+ years. I grew up with family ski homes in Stowe, and in NH. We also spend time in the Rockies, at a variety of spots where we have friends and family. Probably another 40-50 days in a "normal" non-COVID season.

Give us some solid objective facts and info, and we'll help you.

"Looking Cool as Hell" is probably not the best criteria to sort this out. Just saying.

Cheers.

 

[Jeronimo]

Confused. Would like to help, or offer to.

I probably should have been more clear initially, my intention wasn't to ask for help. I was just curious what the responses would be regarding east coast recommendations. I think I was more perplexed about the wide ski vs skinny skis argument. I'm down to use myself as an example though.

What length are your AR's? And the Atlas?

Give me some insight. You talked about Maine. I have maybe 3000 days on snow there. Most at Sugarloaf, maybe 10% at Sunday River. Where do you typically ski when skiing at either spot? Trying to figure out terrain. And not what you aspire to ski well....what you do ski well. Where you feel your best skiing is taking place.

What are you in for boots? That might help us get a good picture. Some skis might NOT be a great match with your boots, and you might want to consider a different boot, and boot fitter to start.

Atlas - 177 with Marker Griffons, AR's - 182 with Marker Jesters.
There isn't a blue trail on Sunday River that intimidates me. I can control my speed and get on edge (without just smearing). Bumps still confuse me, haven't quite figured out the balancing act there. For boots, I have Roxa Element 120's, and they fit like a glove. I had the wrap intuition liner heated to my feet. I will say though that the wrap liner goes quite a ways up your leg and kind of makes your leg feel like its in a cast. That's a "good" thing I guess?

 

[dunbustn]

Good question. IMHO no such thing as one ski fits all conditions I am afraid. I have from 78 under foot up to 106 in lengths 176 up to 188 cms, race skis and powder skis. Eastern hard pack to icy conditions requires sharp sharp edges and overall well tuned ski on that given day. I carry three pair minimum for a day to match conditions. My 180 cm Atomic Race ski pair with razor sharp edges at 1 degree base angle and 3 degrees side edge angle get the nod on the ice Hold unbelievably for me. Vary from 1 to 3 degree sidecuts on my 8 pair (I know too many). When I get lazy in afternoon out come the 100 under foot 188 cm or narrower 180 cm twin tips in soft conditions. So all that to say "match the hatch" and what works for YOU and not me or the other person. For me, I have fun experimenting as lots to choose from. Failing that, I go a demo something new that piques my interest. My 2 cents as always tinkering ..which spells fun in retirement. All the best....

 

[Noodler]

I'm going to shoot straight here and not pulling any punches. Your ski width choice will have a lot do with your skiing skills and the way you make a ski turn. For most skiers that use up-unweighting (extension releases) to pivot the skis at the top of the turn, additional ski width provides more platform/float and allows those skiers to handle more difficult conditions than they normally could on a skinnier ski. These skiers need to be up out of the snow in order to twist the skis to start their turns. More ski underfoot helps these skiers to feel more confident across the whole mountain. However, there's a trade-off.

The ugly truth is that wider skis are probably holding back a lot of skiers from developing better turns through improved tipping skills. If your goal is to truly keep improving in your skiing then going too wide will slow your skiing skills development. I live in CO and spend the vast majority of my time on skis <85mm underfoot (even during great snow seasons). I see a significant decrease in ski tipping performance once I cross about the 85mm waist width. Of course there's a big difference between a 65mm and 85mm, but up to about 85mm, if you have good tipping skills, the ski won't be "getting in the way". Beyond that width I have to really focus (and almost fight) to get the skis rolled up as high on edge as I like when I ski (and this is in all conditions and terrain types).

Today's modern skis are designed to turn really nicely when you tip them up on edge... really high. We don't have to push on them, twist them, or other contortions to make them turn. Just tip 'em... and to that end, a narrower ski is going to provide a better tool for the job when it comes to tipping skis.

 

[Truberski]

I'm going to shoot straight here and not pulling any punches. Your ski width choice will have a lot do with your skiing skills and the way you make a ski turn. For most skiers that use up-unweighting (extension releases) to pivot the skis at the top of the turn, additional ski width provides more platform/float and allows those skiers to handle more difficult conditions than they normally could on a skinnier ski. These skiers need to be up out of the snow in order to twist the skis to start their turns. More ski underfoot helps these skiers to feel more confident across the whole mountain. However, there's a trade-off.

The ugly truth is that wider skis are probably holding back a lot of skiers from developing better turns through improved tipping skills. If your goal is to truly keep improving in your skiing then going too wide will slow your skiing skills development. I live in CO and spend the vast majority of my time on skis <85mm underfoot (even during great snow seasons). I see a significant decrease in ski tipping performance once I cross about the 85mm waist width. Of course there's a big difference between a 65mm and 85mm, but up to about 85mm, if you have good tipping skills, the ski won't be "getting in the way". Beyond that width I have to really focus (and almost fight) to get the skis rolled up as high on edge as I like when I ski (and this is in all conditions and terrain types).

Today's modern skis are designed to turn really nicely when you tip them up on edge... really high. We don't have to push on them, twist them, or other contortions to make them turn. Just tip 'em... and to that end, a narrower ski is going to provide a better tool for the job when it comes to tipping skis.

Generally in agreement with this concept but it’s also a false assumption that typical East Coast/New England conditions warrant ski width under 85 mm. It’s a common statement/position but 10 years in Utah opened my eyes to how with the correct technique you can rail turns on some pretty fat skis. And, conditions in New England are so varied so really need to know where the person skis most and what kind of terrain do they prefer (and how do they want to improve).

My narrowest ski that sees regular use is mid-90s width and I can carve and turn on it just as well as my Head iSL’s. They are slower edge to edge but this really only matters if you are trying to make true SL-type turns. You just need to be picky on ski construction so the width doesn’t come at expense of torsional stiffness and hardback/ice ability, and taper/rocker if you want ski to pull/push at extremes of turn. Mantra, Brahma, Bonafide, J Masterblaster, and Fischer FR94 being ones that worked for me.

 

[François Pugh]

Generally in agreement with this concept but it’s also a false assumption that typical East Coast/New England conditions warrant ski width under 85 mm. It’s a common statement/position but 10 years in Utah opened my eyes to how with the correct technique you can rail turns on some pretty fat skis. And, conditions in New England are so varied so really need to know where the person skis most and what kind of terrain do they prefer (and how do they want to improve).

My narrowest ski that sees regular use is mid-90s width and I can carve and turn on it just as well as my Head iSL’s. They are slower edge to edge but this really only matters if you are trying to make true SL-type turns. You just need to be picky on ski construction so the width doesn’t come at expense of torsional stiffness and hardback/ice ability, and taper/rocker if you want ski to pull/push at extremes of turn. Mantra, Brahma, Bonafide, J Masterblaster, and Fischer FR94 being ones that worked for me.

If mid 90s skis made "just as good" high performance turns on hard snow and ice, people would be winning sl, gs ,sg and DH races on them. They aren't and they don't.

 

[Truberski]

If mid 90s skis made "just as good" high performance turns on hard snow and ice, people would be winning sl, gs ,sg and DH races on them. They aren't and they don't.

Clearly there are extremes to any activity with professional level competitors being such an outlier that it is irrelevant to type of skiing any of us do or enjoy. An FIS prepped race course bears no resemblence to even the worst ice I’ll ever see in VT. If anyone on here skis that type of terrain, has that level of dedication/strength, or competes they should be on a low production, specialized ski. But for the rest of us why pigeon hole yourself into such a limiting tool. Take some lessons to improve your technique, open your mind, and you’ll be carving ice on 90+ skis in no time.

 

[François Pugh]

They don't just work better on water-injected race courses, and you don't have to be a top FIS athlete to tell the difference. They work better on hard snow. If you can't tell the difference between the performance you can get out of a cheater GS or SL ski and a 90-ish waist ski, you should take some lessons and discover what you are missing. Ask any club racer, ask any master's racer, or ask anyone who spends most of their time leaving clean carving tracks behind them while pulling good hard satisfying turns.

 

[PinnacleJim]

Yes you can carve firm groomers on the right 90+ width ski. And you can ski powder with a narrow 70-75 mm carving ski. Some of it is where you ski, how many days you ski, and what terrain you ski. For the 5 to10 day a year eastern skier who rarely leaves the groomers, I would be looking for something 75 or so with good carving capability. For someone who skis more and ski a variety of terrain, two skis - a narrow carver and a wider all mountain ski makes sense. The wider ski can also serve as the ski to take on a trip to the Rockies. That's my approach. My current skis are a Head V8 and Fischer Motive 95.

 

[newfydog]

Good to see all the skilled skiers chime in for the narrow skis here. I've given up on convincing the general public that they ought to look beyond what the shops pack into the racks. Even in the west, particularly here in the PNW, there are more hard snow days than many want to admit, and they could be laying it over relatively effortlessly instead of fighting to hold those powder skis up on edge.

 

[Truberski]

They don't just work better on water-injected race courses, and you don't have to be a top FIS athlete to tell the difference. They work better on hard snow. If you can't tell the difference between the performance you can get out of a cheater GS or SL ski and a 90-ish waist ski, you should take some lessons and discover what you are missing. Ask any club racer, ask any master's racer, or ask anyone who spends most of their time leaving clean carving tracks behind them while pulling good hard satisfying turns.

We’ll agree to disagree on this one. I approach the conversation as someone that has lived on both coasts, has a racing background, and still have an FIS SL ski in the rotation for old time nostalgia. It’s a lazy answer to the original question on whether a sub-75 ski is needed/preferred for the east coast. A carving focused ski has its place (race or cheater) but silly to always suggest this is “the ski” for the East and poor choice for someone skiing Vermont that values all disciplines of skiing.

I’ll spend maybe 1/4 of my day making the turns you described above on my 90ish skis and the rest of the time in the bumps, woods, drops, rocks, and park with my teenage kids. Not that much different from how I skied Utah and in a year like this one I’ve seen more pow in VT than my Wasatch buds. This is a common east coast day in our region and why I cringe with these blanket answers.

 

[Noodler]

Generally in agreement with this concept but it’s also a false assumption that typical East Coast/New England conditions warrant ski width under 85 mm. It’s a common statement/position but 10 years in Utah opened my eyes to how with the correct technique you can rail turns on some pretty fat skis. And, conditions in New England are so varied so really need to know where the person skis most and what kind of terrain do they prefer (and how do they want to improve).

My narrowest ski that sees regular use is mid-90s width and I can carve and turn on it just as well as my Head iSL’s. They are slower edge to edge but this really only matters if you are trying to make true SL-type turns. You just need to be picky on ski construction so the width doesn’t come at expense of torsional stiffness and hardback/ice ability, and taper/rocker if you want ski to pull/push at extremes of turn. Mantra, Brahma, Bonafide, J Masterblaster, and Fischer FR94 being ones that worked for me.

I think you missed my point with my post. I can rail my 115mm deep snow day skis on groomers. The point wasn't whether you can or not, the point was that you there is a point you cross (for me it's about 85mm) where it's no longer the right tool for the job if that job is carving on harder snow. Skiers are "buying turns" using skis wider than necessary and they're actually shortchanging themselves in the process. That was my primary point.

Today I skied 6-12" of fresh snow on 80mm Fischer Brilliant MT skis and it was a blast. The push for skiers to use ever wider skis has just got to stop. There are so many benefits to going narrower and so many problems going wider for your skills development and potential stress on body joints and possible injuries. It's not whether those bigger skis can carve; they sure can for skiers with the right skills, it's about using the right tool for the job and this thread was about East coast skis so I believed it needed a strong dose of reality.

 

[Jilly]

I so agree with this..

 

[François Pugh]

In a way, we have become the tools of our tools. If I had to ski a 90-ish mm ski all the time, I would spend less than 25% of my time ripping high-angle turns on groomers, and soon not be as good at it and not enjoy it as much. I spent less than 20% of my time skiing bumps, less than 20 % of my time in trees and very little time in bumped up trees when my only ski was a speed ski.

That's why I have a quiver now; It's the best of both worlds, but you do have to decide what it's going to be for the next few hours (unless you like spending your time swapping out skis instead of skiing).

 

[AngryAnalyst]

I can’t believe we’re doing this thread again...or that I’m tempted to respond to it