What's the best ski... for me? Part Deux

[teejaywhy]

Last year I started a thread asking for suggestions for a ski.
https://www.pugski.com/threads/whats-the-best-ski-for-me.14521/

I wasn't able to pull the trigger last season so I renew my quest for this winter.

Lots of info and helpful suggestions in the earlier thread. My takeaway:
- Turn focus away from the fatter all-mountain style and look for something more front side oriented and a bit narrower in the 80-90mm range to "build skills."
- Abandon the idea of demoing skis hoping to find something I like. Availability is scarce in AZ and who knows when I might visit someplace with a decent selection. I've considered the advice that it might be better to just pick something and get on with it.

All that being said, my local shop has some of last year's model Liberty VMT 82 left for a good price ($450). I've seen this model pop up in a lot of reviews and it seems to meet my criteria.

(64 yo male, 6'0", 175lbs, intermediate returning to skiing after 28-year hiatus, 9 days in 2018 & 19, mostly on-piste, western mountain skier. Lesson last year introduced me for the first time how to use the edge to make carved turns (!) )

What do y'all think?
172 or 179?
Bindings?

Thanks in advance!
Tom

Shout out to those that helped in the previous thread @Tricia, @Philpug , @Mendieta, @PinnacleJim, @trailtrimmer , @Seldomski ; @oldschoolskier , @silverback , @James , @thebonafortuna , @AngryAnalyst

 

[Philpug]

What do y'all think?
172 or 179?
Bindings?

Since you said you are going to be building skills with this ski, the 172..plus it leaves the door open to add a wider ski down the road.

 

[tch]

I can't speak to the Liberty exactly, but I'd go with Phil's suggestion. I'm about the same weight but shorter, and my hard-snow skis are 168-170. IMHO, shorter will connect you more to the carving qualities of the ski, which is what you sound like you are looking for.

 

[Mendieta]

If I were to offer a humble thought given my little knowledge, and frankly, interest in gear, is that you may want to consider system skis. Those come with demo type, adjustable bindings. The head V line is like that, and so is the Supershape line (I own and lovw the rallies). The upside is relatively low total cost, and a simple decision. No need to even think about bindings.

 

[trailtrimmer]

If I were to offer a humble thought given my little knowledge, and frankly, interest in gear, is that you may want to consider system skis. Those come with demo type, adjustable bindings. The head V line is like that, and so is the Supershape line (I own and lovw the rallies). The upside is relatively low total cost, and a simple decision. No need to even think about bindings.

I'm also a fan of system bindings on non-race skis because you can easily adjust the boot center to tailor the ski response. If the shop can get demo style bindings they can achieve the same effect. However I'm sure Phil can make a solid suggestion on boot center for the Liberty 82. I know for women they suggest 2cm forward.

 

[mikel]

I have time on the V92. I've only skied it in the 179 length and for me it felt a bit too long. I have skied it at a demo and Liberty provided the ski and have also skied it from a resort shop as a "demo rental" Felt the same to me both times. I'm a couple inches shorter than you. My go to ski is a Z90 in a 174. I would definitely go with what Phil suggests.

 

[teejaywhy]

Thanks @Philpug @tch @mikel !

@Mendieta I will take a look at the Head offerings

@trailtrimmer - I need to absorb the system binding idea. I'm really unfamiliar with the new equipment.

Another ski I was looking at that comes with bindings. Atomic Vantage 82ti. Is this the similar idea?
https://shop.atomic.com/en/products/vantage-82-ti-ft-12-gw-aa4168.html

 

[Dwight]

Another ski I was looking at that comes with bindings. Atomic Vantage 82ti. Is this the similar idea?
https://shop.atomic.com/en/products/vantage-82-ti-ft-12-gw-aa4168.html

I took that ski for a few spins last year. You could do the 167 or 174. For getting better technique, I would lean towards the 167.

 

[teejaywhy]

The DPS Cassiar F82 was suggested in the other thread. Powder7 has a pair of 2019 demos w/bindings, 171cm, 8/10 condition
https://www.powder7.com/DPS-Cassiar-F82-Foundation-Skis-171cm-Used-2019/for-sale

 

[Henry]

I need to absorb the system binding idea. I'm really unfamiliar with the new equipment.

"System" bindings are really just ordinary toes & heels mounted on a rail that is screwed to the skis at the factory. The shop just slips the bindings on the rail and sets the length and release setting (Do not let the shop charge a lot of money to mount these bindings). I guess this gives the ski maker a guaranteed sale of bindings with the skis. I like them a lot for the reason trail said--I can slide heel & toe equally forward or back to find the spot I like best. On my previous-version Head Rally I liked them two notches, 8 mm, forward. I haven't been on the current version Rallys. I do have one set of the Elan-labeled Tyrolia system bindings where there is a single adjustment that moves both toe & heel, so those can't be fiddled with.

The big-four binding makers are Head/Tyrolia, Salomon/Atomic, Marker, and Look/Rossi. Often other ski brands have their own labels put on these bindings. All the brands are very good; most of us have our favorites.

 

[teejaywhy]

Warming to the idea. I see an advantage that they may be an easier resale when the bindings don't need to be remounted.

 

[Jim McDonald]

NOTE: Not all system bindings allow independent movement of toe & heel pieces. FWIW, the Attack 13 demos on those Cassiars do have independent movement.

 

[oldschoolskier]

I’d personally suggest a little longer and narrower just under 180 and between 75-85. Something that is billed as an intermediate/advance ski with a claimed multiple radius

Reason, simple really, skis like this generally have an early rise tip to achieve this. Gives you all of the advantages of a shorter ski and tight turn along with the same on GS style turns.

I’ve skied my sons skis, Rossi “Experience 76” I believe, several years old now. He is an intermediate skier, myself biased very much towards race skies only (GS and SL, just like how they ski and perform and generally don’t like no race skis, long story). That said, I was very impressed how large the range of skiability is on these types of designs. They are gentle enough on response to encourage correct technique and more than responsive enough and performance oriented enough that I need to really work them to find the limit. Enough that I could consider them a one ski solution for myself, but definitely one for someone looking to improve before getting into multi-ski application specific platforms.

I know the market has changed in offerings, so I won’t suggest a specific ski, I leave that to those with current inside ski industry knowledge.

One last thing, on binding fore/aft placement, go with what the manufacturer recommends in terms of placement, it is generally very neutral. Learn to ski properly before messing with this as you can inadvertently learn the wrong skills and your future advancement can be limited. Play with this when you are near the top to tweak your performance, not sooner.

In short, little longer, shade narrower, early rise, bias towards advanced with a mention of intermediate.

Hope that helps.

 

[Ken_R]

Last year I started a thread asking for suggestions for a ski.
https://www.pugski.com/threads/whats-the-best-ski-for-me.14521/

I wasn't able to pull the trigger last season so I renew my quest for this winter.

Lots of info and helpful suggestions in the earlier thread. My takeaway:
- Turn focus away from the fatter all-mountain style and look for something more front side oriented and a bit narrower in the 80-90mm range to "build skills."
- Abandon the idea of demoing skis hoping to find something I like. Availability is scarce in AZ and who knows when I might visit someplace with a decent selection. I've considered the advice that it might be better to just pick something and get on with it.

All that being said, my local shop has some of last year's model Liberty VMT 82 left for a good price ($450). I've seen this model pop up in a lot of reviews and it seems to meet my criteria.

(64 yo male, 6'0", 175lbs, intermediate returning to skiing after 28-year hiatus, 9 days in 2018 & 19, mostly on-piste, western mountain skier. Lesson last year introduced me for the first time how to use the edge to make carved turns (!) )

What do y'all think?
172 or 179?
Bindings?

Thanks in advance!
Tom

Shout out to those that helped in the previous thread @Tricia, @Philpug , @Mendieta, @PinnacleJim, @trailtrimmer , @Seldomski ; @oldschoolskier , @silverback , @James , @thebonafortuna , @AngryAnalyst

172cm. Dont overthink it. The Liberty is an awesome ski. Go have fun.

 

[teejaywhy]

I’d personally suggest a little longer and narrower just under 180 and between 75-85. Something that is billed as an intermediate/advance ski with a claimed multiple radius

Thanks, @oldschoolskier. Can you 'splain what you mean by "claimed multiple radius?" I think I understand what the turn radius is, but how does a ski have a multiple radius?

During my first-ever lesson last year, I asked the instructor what kind of ski I should look for. Unfortunately, we didn't have time to explore the conversation very far, but the one thing he recommended was a ski with a turn radius of 17-18 m. Don't know if that was based on watching me ski (hopefully), but I will say I like to cruise and make big turns on easy/intermediate groomers. But I do like to mix it up and try some quick slalom-like fall line turns on steeper pitches.

For reference, the ski I rented that weekend and was totally comfortable with, was able to learn carved turn technique, and even had fun in the 6" of fresh powder that came on the last day. 2016 Nordica NRGy 80 @169cm. skis.com describes this ski as a medium flex, with tip and tail camber, 17.5m radius, recommended for the intermediate to advanced skier.

 

[Andy Mink]

Height isn't as much a factor as weight now when determining ski length. I am a few inches shorter than you but about 35-40 pounds heavier. I'd ski the 179 in the Liberty 82. You'd do well on the 172. It's a really fun ski. The DPS F82 didn't light my fire as much as the F87 and F94. Not sure why as I usually like the narrower skis better. The bit wider skis give you a bit more versatility. @Mendieta's suggestion of the Head V series is also worth consideration. I found the V8 to be really good on piste without being as demanding as the Rally. Definitely a ski that deserves more attention than it gets. Plus you get the system binding.

 

[teejaywhy]

Dont overthink it.

What the hell am I supposed to do with the endless rows and columns of data in this multi-tabbed, relative-referenced and linked-function spreadsheet that I've created for this task??

LOL. The engineer in me can definitely create paralysis by analysis.

 

[Ken_R]

What the hell am I supposed to do with the endless rows and columns of data in this multi-tabbed, relative-referenced and linked-function spreadsheet that I've created for this task??

LOL. The engineer in me can definitely create paralysis by analysis.

I used to have that problem (I studied Civil Engineering the Architecture) but it was causing too much stress and said screw it.

Get the ski and of you dont love it that will give you an excuse to get another one next season... and then another one...

 

[oldschoolskier]

Thanks, @oldschoolskier. Can you 'splain what you mean by "claimed multiple radius?" I think I understand what the turn radius is, but how does a ski have a multiple radius?

During my first-ever lesson last year, I asked the instructor what kind of ski I should look for. Unfortunately, we didn't have time to explore the conversation very far, but the one thing he recommended was a ski with a turn radius of 17-18 m. Don't know if that was based on watching me ski (hopefully), but I will say I like to cruise and make big turns on easy/intermediate groomers. But I do like to mix it up and try some quick slalom-like fall line turns on steeper pitches.

For reference, the ski I rented that weekend and was totally comfortable with, was able to learn carved turn technique, and even had fun in the 6" of fresh powder that came on the last day. 2016 Nordica NRGy 80 @169cm. skis.com describes this ski as a medium flex, with tip and tail camber, 17.5m radius, recommended for the intermediate to advanced skier.

With the early rise, it allows the ski to be built so that it in effect changes the turning radius the further the ski is tipped over (btw this is been around for while already). Some ski have been listed with that feature (sales and marketing) some not, though they likely are that way too.

The best advice would be listen to what @Philpug suggests, industry insider knowledge.

 

[teejaywhy]

With the early rise, it allows the ski to be built so that it in effect changes the turning radius the further the ski is tipped over (btw this is been around for while already). Some ski have been listed with that feature (sales and marketing) some not, though they likely are that way too.

Sorry for the dumb questions... I'm truly interested in learning and understanding these things...

As the ski is tipped over more, I'm logically assuming that will further engage the tip effectively increasing the turn radius... Is that right or do I have it backwards?

And is "early rise" the same as "rocker?"

Thanks!