The One Oh Somethings.

[Philpug]

Well, you guys probably know what you're talking about when it comes to what the more charging skier wants. I'm just saying that the floppiness doesn't do me any favors, either.

It has as much to do with wants and expectations too. Your "floppiness" could be someone else's "playfulness".

 

[Monique]

It has as much to do with wants and expectations too. Your "floppiness" could be someone else's "playfulness".

Dead on.

 

[tball]

It has as much to do with wants and expectations too. Your "floppiness" could be someone else's "playfulness".

Which is why it's so difficult to make a recommendation to someone you haven't seen ski. Someone should start a business where they ski with a customer as part of the equipment selection process.

 

[Alexzn]

At the risk to rehash the pertinent Epic discussion last year, to me the 10Xs belong to the two-ski quiver. As soon as you cross into a three-ski quiver, they loose their purpose. Every ski is a compromise and if you want to cover everything with two skis you need to compromise more. An interesting question to me is whether the industry make more profits by selling two pairs of more expensive skis vs three pairs of cheaper skis. This is supposed to be the insider forum, so its interesting to hear the response. Of course most of us have passed the three-ski mark a while ago, so the question is purely rhetorical.

 

[tball]

Sure there is a cost for every ski but I really don't think these skis are projected properly and I think the expectations are set way too high. Every ski is a compromise but I think this segment for 90% of the skiers that own them and expect them to be a one ski quiver the cost is just too high.

Here's a somewhat obvious thought: this depends on if you can switch skis easily or not. Skiers live in two different worlds, those stuck on one pair of skis all day, and those who can switch skis easily.

Personally I find skis even as narrow as 100mm too much of a compromise. That is until I'm stuck on one pair of skis for the whole day, then I want some. That compromise exactly what you need for the changing conditions on a powder day as everything gets skied out.

Usually, I'm able to switch skis. Starting out on 110mm the morning of a powder day, then finishing on 90mm after lunch is ideal. No need to compromise.

 

[Lorenzzo]

Here's a somewhat obvious thought: this depends on if you can switch skis easily or not. Skiers live in two different worlds, those stuck on one pair of skis all day, and those who can switch skis easily.

Personally I find skis even as narrow as 100mm too much of a compromise. That is until I'm stuck on one pair of skis for the whole day, then I want some. That compromise exactly what you need for the changing conditions on a powder day as everything gets skied out.

Usually, I'm able to switch skis. Starting out on 110mm the morning of a powder day, then finishing on 90mm after lunch is ideal. No need to compromise.

Yes the logic changes if switching skis during the day is impractical. Absent that I agree with Alex but if I'm at the top of Snowbird and my car is a 20 minute round trip walk from the bottom I'm looking to compromise.

 

[Philpug]

At the risk to rehash the pertinent Epic discussion last year, to me the 10Xs belong to the two-ski quiver. As soon as you cross into a three-ski quiver, they loose their purpose. Every ski is a compromise and if you want to cover everything with two skis you need to compromise more. An interesting question to me is whether the industry make more profits by selling two pairs of more expensive skis vs three pairs of cheaper skis. This is supposed to be the insider forum, so its interesting to hear the response. Of course most of us have passed the three-ski mark a while ago, so the question is purely rhetorical.

I like your thoughts here. I agree 100% that these skis are the near perfect big part of a two ski quiver and get lost in anything more than than and I will add rarely the best option in a single ski quiver. I just spent a great 18-24" powder day on a finesse biased 106 and I had a blast (review will be posted soon).

 

[bbinder]

There are no rules, only guidelines for how to pick gear. It is crazy how much of a moving target it is and how it can change almost yearly.

This kind of mimics the fashion industry, with this year's hot thing being next year's 'meh'. I understand that the ski companies have to sell new skis to stay in business, but the marketing that heralds the Next Big Thing kindles the cynicism in me. (Two years ago, weren't we talking about the 1 oh somethings as being the ideal one ski quiver? Or was that a dream I had last night...)

 

[Philpug]

This kind of mimics the fashion industry, with this year's hot thing being next year's 'meh'. I understand that the ski companies have to sell new skis to stay in business, but the marketing that heralds the Next Big Thing kindles the cynicism in me. (Two years ago, weren't we talking about the 1 oh somethings as being the ideal one ski quiver? Or was that a dream I had last night...)

Even then, I think the One Oh Somethings were an answer in search of a question. It felt like the manufacturers were force feeding us the skis and not the consumer looking for something that wasn't being offered.

 

[Ron]

I think the 1oh's are still evolving and finding their place. What defines a powder ski is changing IMHO with new shape and construction. I don't see (thats just me) for more than 110 underfoot especially given new designs. This season I skied my Enforcers in mid-thigh uber blower and the SR107 in boot deep talcum powder with no issues. HOWEVER, what the skier is looking for out of a ski really is the difference. A ski like a Patron is more surfy and playful than the enforcer so that may be the experience the skier is looking for. The Praxis Protest at 123 is a hoot and tons-oh-fun too but it just may not be the skiers cup of tea.

So when looking at what the 1oh's provide, its really relative to the skier. For me, the SR107, Enforcer and the FX84 are a great 3 ski line up. I think the 1oh's are a great option and provide added versatility especially for resort skiing where a ski that can be adept and still fun in the untracked can still be nimble and perform at a high level on tracked out and bumps.

 

[bbinder]

Even then, I think the One Oh Somethings were an answer in search of a question. It felt like the manufacturers were force feeding us the skis and not the consumer looking for something that wasn't being offered.

Exactly!

 

[UGASkiDawg]

I think the 1oh's are still evolving and finding their place. What defines a powder ski is changing IMHO with new shape and construction. I don't see (thats just me) for more than 110 underfoot especially given new designs. This season I skied my Enforcers in mid-thigh uber blower and the SR107 in boot deep talcum powder with no issues. HOWEVER, what the skier is looking for out of a ski really is the difference. A ski like a Patron is more surfy and playful than the enforcer so that may be the experience the skier is looking for. The Praxis Protest at 123 is a hoot and tons-oh-fun too but it just may not be the skiers cup of tea.

So when looking at what the 1oh's provide, its really relative to the skier. For me, the SR107, Enforcer and the FX84 are a great 3 ski line up. I think the 1oh's are a great option and provide added versatility especially for resort skiing where a ski that can be adept and still fun in the untracked can still be nimble and perform at a high level on tracked out and bumps.

Did I miss your thoughts on the SR107?

 

[Philpug]

I think the 1oh's are still evolving and finding their place. What defines a powder ski is changing IMHO with new shape and construction. I don't see (thats just me) for more than 110 underfoot especially given new designs. This season I skied my Enforcers in mid-thigh uber blower and the SR107 in boot deep talcum powder with no issues. HOWEVER, what the skier is looking for out of a ski really is the difference. A ski like a Patron is more surfy and playful than the enforcer so that may be the experience the skier is looking for. The Praxis Protest at 123 is a hoot and tons-oh-fun too but it just may not be the skiers cup of tea.

So when looking at what the 1oh's provide, its really relative to the skier. For me, the SR107, Enforcer and the FX84 are a great 3 ski line up. I think the 1oh's are a great option and provide added versatility especially for resort skiing where a ski that can be adept and still fun in the untracked can still be nimble and perform at a high level on tracked out and bumps.

I am not saying that there aren't any good One Oh's but in many cases there is more overlap than definition on a quiver and as @Alexzn alluded to, they might fit best in a two ski quiver.

 

[Tom K.]

I could see 10X skis on days of chowder, when it continues to snow through the day. Otherwise, 80, 95-100, and 115 covers my needs well.

Plus a pair of real slalom skis, of course!

Though Alexzn makes a good point about 10X skis fitting well into a two-ski quiver.

 

[Living Proof]

Even then, I think the One Oh Somethings were an answer in search of a question. It felt like the manufacturers were force feeding us the skis and not the consumer looking for something that wasn't being offered.

No question about it, the manufactures benefited from entire transition to wider skis. But, I would argue that the bigger-is-better reviews on Epic and TGR, especially from big mountain skiers who skied soft snow, ramped-up the hype to a whole different level. Anyone advocating narrower skis was slammed as uninformed. Then again, there is no equipment oriented sport that values "new" as much as skiers do their skis. I can't ever see that changing. Some might call it drinking the cool aide.

 

[Ron]

Did I miss your thoughts on the SR107?

Still need to ski more on them. I am dialing in the mounting position. Initial thoughts are that this is a pretty incredible ski that is a good example of a 1oh that is changing the field. As a little teaser, the sr107 and the sali q105 share a pretty similar profile. The q105 has much more tip rocker but overall these two skis share a similar shape (nearly no tail rocker) I love the q105 btw. The sr107 has a very springy tip (carbon insert) that seeming has a "on demand" tip rocker where the tip stays glued to the snow. In deeper powder it flexes providing float and on groomed, piled and broken, it seems to modulate and flex as needed maintaining contact with zero deflection. Its uber damp but still has a lot of spring and feedback. It's not a surfy slide around ski but is super easy in the trees and bumps. This is where I am dialing in my mount position. I am about half way between the AM and FS but I like more centered mounts. . So far, I am very impressed for a ski that can dance a waltz or jump into the pit on demand. Is quick, easy and just snappy fun. It's dampness belies its liveliness. You are paying for this feel for sure but I can't think of a ski that has these characteristics.

I am not saying that there aren't any good One Oh's but in many cases there is more overlap than definition on a quiver and as @Alexzn alluded to, they might fit best in a two ski quiver.

This is true but there are always gives and takes in a 2 ski quiver. I value more float and fun factor that the 1oh gives you (depending on which one) in the powder. So again, it's really ski and skier dependent.

 

[UGASkiDawg]

Still need to ski more on them. I am dialing in the mounting position. Initial thoughts are that this is a pretty incredible ski that is a good example of a 1oh that is changing the field. As a little teaser, the sr107 and the sali q105 share a pretty similar profile. The q105 has much more tip rocker but overall these two skis share a similar shape (nearly no tail rocker) I love the q105 btw. The sr107 has a very springy tip (carbon insert) that seeming has a "on demand" tip rocker where the tip stays glued to the snow. In deeper powder it flexes providing float and on groomed, piled and broken, it seems to modulate and flex as needed maintaining contact with zero deflection. Its uber damp but still has a lot of spring and feedback. It's not a surfy slide around ski but is super easy in the trees and bumps. This is where I am dialing in my mount position. I am about half way between the AM and FS but I like more centered mounts. . So far, I am very impressed for a ski that can dance a waltz or jump into the pit on demand. Is quick, easy and just snappy fun. It's dampness belies its liveliness. You are paying for this feel for sure but I can't think of a ski that has these characteristics.



This is true but there are always gives and takes in a 2 ski quiver. I value more float and fun factor that the 1oh gives you (depending on which one) in the powder. So again, it's really ski and skier dependent.

So how does it compare the BMX 108 you are selling? Strengths of one vs the other?

 

[Ron]

So how does it compare the BMX 108 you are selling? Strengths of one vs the other?

I dont know if I truly recall but the 108 is not as quick and is not as easy. Since steamboat is more about quick, the 108 is not ideal for here (at least for me) its a great ski that is smooth, stable and powerful but at `178 its still easy to ski. The 108 is a 28m tr where the 107 is a 19.2, the 107 is easier and quicker. Both float well for their width. Both ski soft bumps well. The 108 does feel more stout. the 108 will crush crud and rip big gs but its not the dancer, short-radius turning machine the 107 is.

 

[Ron]

No question about it, the manufactures benefited from entire transition to wider skis. But, I would argue that the bigger-is-better reviews on Epic and TGR, especially from big mountain skiers who skied soft snow, ramped-up the hype to a whole different level. Anyone advocating narrower skis was slammed as uninformed. Then again, there is no equipment oriented sport that values "new" as much as skiers do their skis. I can't ever see that changing. Some might call it drinking the cool aide.

Golf, hands down

Drinking the cool-aid is accepting something without proof and/or buying into it even if you really don't have the same results. Trying new technology or new concepts and then using that experience to form opinions likes or dislikes is learning for me. i use the reviews and opinions of others who I have identified as understanding my preferences and that i have a history with. There is a cost to this but I enjoy seeing how different skis work for me and what the experience is from them. For others, this may not be fun or beneficial.

 

[Living Proof]

Golf, hands down

Drinking the cool-aid is accepting something without proof and/or buying into it even if you really don't have the same results. Trying new technology or new concepts and then using that experience to form opinions likes or dislikes is learning for me. i use the reviews and opinions of others who I have identified as understanding my preferences and that i have a history with. There is a cost to this but I enjoy seeing how different skis work for me and what the experience is from them. For others, this may not be fun or beneficial.

Absolutely, totally disagree. For you, maybe, but 99.9% of real golfers know you can't buy your game by changing clubs. The PGA tour is full of stories where someone changed clubs and their games went to hell. Ask Rory McIllroy about his results after leaving Titleist. Personally, I know of no-one who changes clubs on a yearly basis. OK, there are some with more money than brains and like new equipment, I just have not met them. Real golfers roll their eyes at yearly manufactures claims of better performance. The reason is simple, change clubs...handicap goes up. Handicap is objective, big difference from skiing. I'd love to see a double blind ski review.

Not saying that golf club technology does not change, after a number of years the clubs are better. But, far more often, the demo experience proves clubs are almost insignificant. Golfers love to demo new clubs, the common wisdom is the club you loved while demoing turns to crap once you own it. Pro shops at any golf course are very happy to provide this years hot golf clubs for a round of golf. Most are returned with the golfer shaking his head (from left to right, not up and down).

We won't be fooled again.