The One Oh Somethings.

[Josh Matta]

LP there is difference between changing clubs and changing if you are going to use a Driver, 3 wood, 7 iron or putter. Sometime you really want that pitching wedge as well.

The thing is what your describing more akin to changing boots. Would you try to drive off the tee with a putter? Heck no, so why would you try to GS turn though crud on a Head Supershape? or ski ice on a reverse reverse powder board? or ski powder on mid fat when you have the huge powder ski.

 

[Brian Finch]

The best of the 1 oh's!!! SLab

 

[Josh Matta]

you mean Q-LAb!

 

[Living Proof]

LP there is difference between changing clubs and changing if you are going to use a Driver, 3 wood, 7 iron or putter. Sometime you really want that pitching wedge as well.

The thing is what your describing more akin to changing boots. Would you try to drive off the tee with a putter? Heck no, so why would you try to GS turn though crud on a Head Supershape? or ski ice on a reverse reverse powder board? or ski powder on mid fat when you have the huge powder ski.

Josh,
A set of golf clubs is the ultimate quiver, you get to carry 14 different pieces of equipment. You do not use a driver when the green is 100 yards away.

In skiing terms, my argument is that there is very very little difference in a GS crud ski ( or a golf driver ) from '15 to '16 to what will be released in '17. Put another way, the perception of new, shiney and improved creates a lot more drool in skiing forums than it does in the golf world (or any other equipment oriented sport). Manufactures claim improvements from year to year, but, in the golf discussions there is a ton of skepticism. In Phil's OP, he does state that the ski manufacturers tout improvement, no denying this, not at all surprising. Buyer beware. Then again, I've always been more of crediting the archer than the arrow.

I do agree that in the real world, changing ski boots and golf clubs is seldom done, and, then so, with some risk.

 

[SBrown]

I could see 10X skis on days of chowder, when it continues to snow through the day. ...

This is exactly when I like mine (108) the best.

 

[UGASkiDawg]

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.

I know Ron started it but there is nothing in this world less interesting than discussions involving the word golf. The world's least interesting "sport". Sorry just had to get it off my chest....back to discussions of golf equipment and skis.

 

[SBrown]

I know Ron started it but there is nothing in this world less interesting than discussions involving the word golf. The world's least interesting "sport". Sorry just had to get it off my chest....back to discussions of golf equipment and skis.

Just demoed tennis racquets with my daughter today ... you want summa dat?

 

[UGASkiDawg]

Tennis is a sport

 

[Josh Matta]

Well, this is a hornet's nest... or Pandora's something-or-other?

I honestly believe that a HUGE population of passionate skiers are well served to pursue a quiver that consists of a mid 70s-80s high performance all-rounder (like the Latigo for mellow-to-bump focused, or perhaps a Dynastar Course Pro for the ex-racer, Anger Management crowd), and a 95-98 versatile ski (Motive 95/Stormrider95/Bonafide/Enforcer, with the occasional NewMantra bloke that is either hardcore for Volkl, or doesn't live in the same ski area planet that I do). That covers 99% of both east and west coast skiing, with the remaining 1% dealt with using fitty bucks to demo a fattie for a hero blower snowgasm pow day.

Where the 1 oh something fits in is... admittedly tough. It is either for the eternal optimist, or the out of town visitor that thinks that the one in five, 20% of the time the West has in-bounds pow is right when they are flying in (see the aforementioned eternal optimist), OR when an advanced skier knows the goods are coming, but understands that they have a handful of runs before things are tracked out and you have to live with your choice in crud and chopped up groomers back to the lift.

I'm not a hater of the 1 oh something, I'm a lustful dreamer: the ski I gaze upon most in my garage is 104 underfoot, and I love the way it pulls across the hill in end-of-day groomers. and floats in first-chair untracked, and makes me giggle like Drahtguy in HeroBumps, and...

I think the 1 o somethings make great everyday skis at a place like Snowbird or Jackson. Id go so far to say that if I was flying to either of those places tomorrow and had no idea the weather I would want either a 185 Cochise, 185 El capo, or 190 Q Lab. Wider than that and you are hoping for powder, narrower(and most likely shorter and turnier) and tram runs with my old bros become a chore. The longer straight skis let me still keep up with them while we catch the tram we rode up.

Back east we generally do not have wide open spaces my 1 oh something right now is a 183cm TST. Its basically a narrow powder ski. I am in the market for another 100-109mmish ski though, something chargy for days here when the Groomers and wide open front four trails are piles of crud, or slush, or just a mess.

With that said I have locker at the bottom of the hill and own 10+ skis.

 

[givethepigeye]

Not certain why Kastle killed the FX104. I have a pair, preferred it to the Cochise (which are for sale Btw) for exactly what Josh mentions above ^.

 

[Philpug]

I think the 1 o somethings make great everyday skis at a place like Snowbird or Jackson. Id go so far to say that if I was flying to either of those places tomorrow and had no idea the weather I would want either a 185 Cochise, 185 El capo, or 190 Q Lab. Wider than that and you are hoping for powder, narrower(and most likely shorter and turnier) and tram runs with my old bros become a chore. The longer straight skis let me still keep up with them while we catch the tram we rode up.

Back east we generally do not have wide open spaces my 1 oh something right now is a 183cm TST. Its basically a narrow powder ski. I am in the market for another 100-109mmish ski though, something chargy for days here when the Groomers and wide open front four trails are piles of crud, or slush, or just a mess.

With that said I have locker at the bottom of the hill and own 10+ skis.

If you get a chance, try the Pinnacle 105, it is a quieter Soul 7.

 

[Monique]

So we have a thread about 10x skis and one about 95ers. But then also another thread where people are (I think) saying that the prototype Enforcer 93 isn't different enough from the 100, but that a 90 would really be something. Generally speaking won't construction and shape be just as meaningful as waist when comparing skis? Incrementally is there *that* much of a difference from 93 to 95 to 97 to 100 to ..? Or on the contrary, how can some people on this thread be talking about 101s and others be talking about 108s as if they are in the same category? And I remember some threads on Epic about how some skis marketed as 98s are really 100s but the manufacturer didn't want to intimidate the purchaser ...

And if you're an "I want to float in the powder" skier, your weight is going to have a huge (no pun intended) impact on what you consider to be wide enough to be a powder ski ... or if you're @Chris Geib presumably 80mm counts, just by preference?

Of course, if these categories are all just excuses to talk about skis, then .. yeah, that makes sense. Carry on

 

[Brian Finch]

What he said!

 

[Brian Finch]

you mean Q-LAb!

 

[Philpug]

So we have a thread about 10x skis and one about 95ers. But then also another thread where people are (I think) saying that the prototype Enforcer 93 isn't different enough from the 100, but that a 90 would really be something. Generally speaking won't construction and shape be just as meaningful as waist when comparing skis? Incrementally is there *that* much of a difference from 93 to 95 to 97 to 100 to ..? Or on the contrary, how can some people on this thread be talking about 101s and others be talking about 108s as if they are in the same category? And I remember some threads on Epic about how some skis marketed as 98s are really 100s but the manufacturer didn't want to intimidate the purchaser ...

And if you're an "I want to float in the powder" skier, your weight is going to have a huge (no pun intended) impact on what you consider to be wide enough to be a powder ski ... or if you're @Chris Geib presumably 80mm counts, just by preference?

Of course, if these categories are all just excuses to talk about skis, then .. yeah, that makes sense. Carry on

As I said in the OP, the One Oh's are a melting pot of designs and are broken down into a couple of categories....11/10th skis and lighter powder skis with companies like Armada offering both in this category with the Invictus 108Ti and the TST that @Josh Matta did such a fine review of HERE. The 95ish's (ranging from 93-97mm) are more defined in their purpose with their shapes and construction coming from this category and in many cases a better application.

 

[Living Proof]

Of course, if these categories are all just excuses to talk about skis, then .. yeah, that makes sense. Carry on

You have correctly reduced the discussion to it's essence.
This brought a big smile to my face. If we meet in Aspen, you get a big high 5 and hug.

 

[Ron]

I know Ron started it but there is nothing in this world less interesting than discussions involving the word golf. The world's least interesting "sport". Sorry just had to get it off my chest....back to discussions of golf equipment and skis.

lol, i didnt "Start" anything! dont blame me for that! btw- i dont golf

 

[Monique]

What he said!

You callin' me a he? (or if not I'm not sure who your antecedent is)

 

[Ron]

So we have a thread about 10x skis and one about 95ers. But then also another thread where people are (I think) saying that the prototype Enforcer 93 isn't different enough from the 100, but that a 90 would really be something. Generally speaking won't construction and shape be just as meaningful as waist when comparing skis? Incrementally is there *that* much of a difference from 93 to 95 to 97 to 100 to ..? Or on the contrary, how can some people on this thread be talking about 101s and others be talking about 108s as if they are in the same category? And I remember some threads on Epic about how some skis marketed as 98s are really 100s but the manufacturer didn't want to intimidate the purchaser ...

And if you're an "I want to float in the powder" skier, your weight is going to have a huge (no pun intended) impact on what you consider to be wide enough to be a powder ski ... or if you're @Chris Geib presumably 80mm counts, just by preference?

Of course, if these categories are all just excuses to talk about skis, then .. yeah, that makes sense. Carry on

YEP! i have been banging the drum for some while now that waist width is not the determining factor anymore although it is a relative guide. The Enforcer is a great example of a ski that is so soft snow-centric due to its design (tapered tip/tail- rocker profile) that the 100 underfoot isn't the whole story. Even ski's like a FX85 vs a Mx83 are so different. However, you do need to group and categorize somehow and its easier to just say "80 something" or '1-Oh" something. At some point I think it may be easier to say carving ski's, frontside versatile, soft snow versatile or something along those lines. (not saying to use those)

 

[Ecimmortal]

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.

Nailed it! My 10X is my DD, and then I fiddle around with my pow ski. I'm still on an 11/12 Influence 105. I could see going skinnier. I really liked the Motive 95 when I demo'd it. But not enough to actually spend money when my Influence are still going. I'm willing to make the compromise because honestly I'm not looking to ski ice or hardpack. And when we get in to the melt/freeze cycle I try to get up when it's soft instead of when it's hard.

I tried to do a 3 ski quiver, but it annoys me to have any money tied up in something I may not pull out too often.